Agreed.

**Who here (besides me) knows where "Catch 22" comes from? (and what it meant?)

Came from the Heller novel

:rock: :ribbon:

TES has and always will be an action adventure RPG. Character customization isn't taking a back seat to combat. Your character customization is more in-depth than in any previous game (except possibly Daggerfall, we have to see the end result of Skyrim) and combat has always been a big part of TES. TES has always had the perfect balance of combat and character customization and it is keeping it in Skyrim, so no need to worry.

The movie had my boy Arkin in it and was really gruesome.

It's all about choices and consequences. Shaping the world, aswell as your character. Stats, non-linear story paths, NPC reactions - these are only your "instruments".

The whole cast was the perfect storm ~that fizzled out. (I still liked parts of it).

@Topic: IMO Skyrim might ~might be AA, though Oblivion was close enough for me to be RPG (though lacking in all but environment... Which was impressive).

AA and RPG aren't mutually exclusive. TES has always been since Arena, an Action Adventure RPG.

Never forget in all your pontificating the ONLY purpose of the term rpg was is and will always be to make it easier to sell the game to someone by making it easier for them to find it. Its just a label.

Which is only to say that it is in real time.

While I like action games in general... "RPGs" prefixed with "Action" in their description [for me] have already lost the 'benefit of the doubt'; and have to prove themselves without it... Most that I've tried haven't.

So I guess Diablo is not an RPG...

Interactivity is games' primary property. Game developers are ignoring this and making linear games. All the interactivity we get these days is bullet impact on an enemy. Stats are needed for interactivity but I don't have to see them. I only want to see the interactivity. So I value a game to be an RPG only with the levels of interactivity I can experience.

Minecraft, Eve online... Those are good examples. Especially Minecraft in online mod has great potential. And Minecraft needs more stuff regarding players. Off course it is unfair to compare online games to single-player games.

I see Elder Scrolls as RPG. I got enough interactivity from this game. And it is very very detailed. It has great potential with upcoming sandbox elements. It has parts that are linear but it has parts non-linear. So based on non-linear parts, I can call it an RPG.

I recognize many games which called "RPG" as linear games. Add as many scripted choices and consequences and multiple endings as you can, they are still linear games. They are as much role playing game as Half-Life or CoD.

Writing for an RPG is the biggest issue. An RPG writer should write a setting, goals, desires, ideas, views, as many characters as possible. They should not write the experience. They should not write the morality. Morality can exist within game characters but they should not shove it down to the player's mouth. Morrowind here is the amazing example of this. People in Morrowind have different views on any issue you can imagine. All information comes from in-game sources. Player is free to choose any view or develop his/her own view. Choices are often based on player's realtime decisions rather than dialog gates, this is true for consequences too. Writers are probably completely unaware of the choices I made and consequences I faced. See, this is what makes it a true RPG. The quality of this kind of writing can vary. Game's sandbox capabilities can help. Unfortunately, we don't get many examples of this. On the bright side, this means there is lots of potential.

Off course I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

If it has stat based character progression then it's an RPG.

A deceptive label in some instance. 'Makes you buy on assumption. 'Leaves a bad taste when its discovered.

I know this feeling first hand from the food industry...
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/honeytrees-sugar-free-imitation-honey-12oz_104419_raw.jpg
Look closely [in the store] and you'll find this obvious 'Honey' is just Maltitol syrup, and Acesulfame K.

I like it, but I don't consider it much of one, no. :shrug:

Diablo is not too far distant from 'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf0W0GpGgkI&feature=related' or 'http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vANIKd_id-o#t=01m21s'.

I'd always thought of Diablo as a dumbed-down Nethack with fancy graphics, but I think you just nailed it with Black Tiger. It's a side-scroller.

Heck it can be Dev + for all that i care. Ima steal it and play it, cuz it's skyrim.

Um, Skyrim still has stats. Just not stats that the developers felt were unnecessary.

They've got perks which cover most of what attributes did (and judging from Fallout 3, and then some), and in a game where everyone runs and jumps, the new leveling system wouldn't have worked with acrobatics and athletics.

Not to mention, we've seen a grand total of one trailer. You can't really judge how RPG-like a game's gonna be from that.

So, save your complaints for when we actually know something about the game.

Who cares?

Darn it. You said:


A game cannot obviously be an RPG just because it has stats, because, as you say, stats are not exclusive to RPGs. Obviously then, you are not saying that ES is an RPG because it has stats, though your wording certainly makes it look that way. You also said that ES is a "P&P medium" (or at least an electronic representation of such) that gives you the ability to "make any character you can think of." So, those two traits along with included stats as the deciding factor (because they "define the role"), we can conclude that ES is an RPG. Do I understand your meaning now, or is it time for me to give up?

Sheesh, I'm sounding like Vizzini in the Princess Bride! :banghead:



I am inclined to agree -- though probably for different reasons -- that stats are inseparable from RPGs. There is one caveat: you can postulate the existence of beings without attributes, and if you can figure out how to play such a being, then maybe you can make an RPG where stats do not define your abilities.

Skyrim ditches eight explicit attributes, but those attributes are still implied, both by the three remaining hard attributes and by your character's abilities. Your character's attributes also seem to be partly defined by your own coordination and timing (the action element, I suppose). A lot of players may believe that a role cannot be defined if your character has only abilities, but Skyrim hasn't gone quite so far as to remove all stats.

All games have stats though...
How do you think things like player health, weapon damage, enemy health, body armour are defined? It's just hidden from the player.

Inb4 oh but that's different.

That was my point too. I only want to see the interactivity. Every item have multiple stats for a physic system to work but I don't need to see stats or physic calculations on screen to have physics.

I believe attributes can contribute to a sense of character but they don't really define whether a game is an RPG or not.

I'm thinking back to Ultima Online which probably embodied the idea of an RPG better than any other computer game I have played. Your character had no attributes (or perks for that matter) but UO was unarguably an RPG because of the diversity of ways in which you could shape and play your character and interact with the world around you.

If anything I think it is the continuing streamling of the skill system which harms TES's status as an RPG more than the removal of attributes but overall I think Skyrim still has many of the characteristics which made UO feel like an RPG.

I do think that the TES games have become more action-orientated with each instalment but arguably that is always how they were always intended to be and it is improvements in technology that are allowing that happen.

This is a problem for an RPG; and I'll tell you why... [IMO]

An RPG that has an assigned character (like Planescape:Torment and the Witcher) can have you playing characters that are essentially alien in nature. They should have their own coordination and timing; Their own abilities and their own sensibilities about how to go about using them. In an RPG, it should be enough for the player to choose their Fireball spell (or combat trick, or specialized skill), and them handle it ~and not be impaired by the player's lack of coordination; (or unfairly aided by their personal ability at it).

And RPGs that allow you to create a character for the game get even more awkward because the PC might be a complete klutz as per their own history and biology, and personality... Agility 1 material... and the Player deftly hopping and weaving in and out of enemies is not something they should be able to accomplish ~Its practically cheating. On the flip side.. Your PC might be a match for Bruce Lee in hand to hand... Are you? The PC is supposed to be this skilled expert, but the player is hampering their every move ~when it should be that the player can suggest a target and the EXPERT handle their own defense ~because they are expert at it, This goes for a cat-burglar/safecracker PC as well... The Expert lock picker should be able to handle the lock without help; and should not be making novice mistakes and breaking picks because the player happens to be poor at it.

**There is also the case where someone simply CANNOT play as a very coordinated person, but in RPGs they can play as a agile acrobat ~not so if the game treats the PC as basically a digital costume instead of a full fledged character (with their own specialized abilities, strengths ~and weaknesses!).

Now when I play Fallout for instance (and I mean Fallout)... I will create a PC to see how they would fare in those circumstances ~not to see how I myself would fare in those circumstances. :shrug:
Games that swap the player for the PC (Like Prey, Quake, Doom, and somewhat like Oblivion) are not always boring, but they almost never feel like an RPG to me; [there have been a few exceptional exceptions, but it has not been the norm for me].

It is my opinion that the best RPGs are those where the PC is not an extension of the player, but rather the only implement of them in that world, and their experience should be completely limited to what their specific PC is actually capable of accomplishing ~based purely on the PC's stats, skills, and abilities.

The term, "Role Playing Game" is a huge umbrella and covers much territory. It's like asking, "what is an American?"

So I think everyone in this thread is probably right and there ya have it.

Think is, we all like different things from "our rpgs" and none of us will get everything and some of us will get nothing we want. :shocking: